D&D 5E Wandering Monsters: The Little Guys

[TerraDave]

Personally I think James doesnt have anything better to write about, so he is going for a Star Magazine/National Enquirer style just to stir things up. Schindehette had the same problem with nothing to write about either.

I use to really like this column. Now, I think he needs a vacation.

 

[DEFCON 1]

You're right. I really love Irontooth (and the kobolds) in Keep on the Shadowfell. I'm on record as hating The Sunless Citadel. You can look it up. But look at the 4e treatment of kobolds and goblins. They ain't funny. Both modules (from two different eras of the game) depicted kobolds and goblins pretty much exactly as they were officially presented in the monster manual.

Except you are completely forgetting the goblin Splug, who is described within the exact same KotS module as "Splug can provide comic relief, serve as a convenient porter and servant, or be a hidden threat who eventually betrays the party-- whatever you think is best for the story."

So within a single module... a type of monster is described as behaving two different ways. Which is entirely the point. (And then on top of that, Balgron the Fat is described and acts in a third way in actuality.) Which shows that no author is beholden to his edition's monster manual as the end-all-and-be-all of how he uses them. So to suggest that you can't have a monster described one way because now that's going to be the only way they will ever appear is just not true.

You don't like how goblins are described in certain editions/games. Cool. And you'd prefer if 5E didn't have them described any other way except the way you want them to. Fine. But at least acknowledge that at the end of the day, it doesn't matter what they write because you're going to play them however you want.

Better that they add something new to the table for us to get ideas from, than to just write "Hey, remember how Gary wrote about goblins in AD&D? Just use that!"

 

[Salamandyr]

I've also got to say, the stats as written don't lend themselves to comic either. Kobolds, with their pack attack ability are brutal. Because of their individual weakness, you can really pack them into an encounter, and if you don't have the ability to take the out in one bunch, they can easily overwhelm a low level party. That fat innkeeper with the kobold problem? He'd be ripped apart.

The only thing keeping goblins from being equally scary is the lack of a sneak attack die. Give them that, and their stealth special ability, and an running battle? Good bye party.

 

[Salamandyr]

You don't like how goblins are described in certain editions/games. Cool. And you'd prefer if 5E didn't have them described any other way except the way you want them to. Fine. But at least acknowledge that at the end of the day, it doesn't matter what they write because you're going to play them however you want.

I did.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Then you don't want ANY monster description then? Statblock only? Because ANY description someone writes is going to be counter to someone's idea of what a goblin is.

Actually, I want a MULTITUDE of descriptions, and an explicit acknowledgement that this is only one possible example of what a goblin might be.

If there is to be a Monster Manual for 5e that is an alphabetical listing of various monsters (and there are reasons why I think there shouldn't be, but we'll put those aside for the moment), then under Goblin, there should be an example of, say, the Goblins of the Nentir Vale, and maybe those guys are a little funny and are mounted on sick dogs, but nowhere does it suggest that those goblins define what goblins are for the entire D&D game.

And, heck, if there's room, maybe the next page has the Goblins of Podunk Fields, and they're all like my goblins of darkness and night-time and baby-murder. Or maybe the Goblins of Eberron, and they're heirs to a great lost empire....

All those are D&D goblins. So is whatever version or custom type you use in your game. The monster design shouldn't presume that the D&D goblin is one thing, or even mostly one thing. And those goblins deserve to be mechanically distinct, too -- goofy goblins have a Pumpkin Chuckin' power and high DEX, and Podunk Field goblins have a Fade into Darkness power and a good Stealth skill, and Eberron goblins have a Pride in Defeat power and a decent INT (or whatever).

And if there's not room for a sampling, the one goblin that gets to be in the MM, should still not pretend like it's the D&D goblin, and should still be a specific type of goblin. Even if you have only one goblin, it should be ONE of those goblins, not "Goblins in D&D are like THIS!", but "This goblin is like this, and you can use it in your game if you want!"

 

[DEFCON 1]

Actually, I want a MULTITUDE of descriptions, and an explicit acknowledgement that this is only one possible example of what a goblin might be.

You been saying this for months, Kamikaze... as if nobody has ever realized in any edition of the game that every single thing within the books can be changed to fit how they want to use them. Do you REALLY believe that? Do you really believe that every single monster description has to begin with "Remember, you can change any of these things to fit your campaign!"? Like none of us would get that otherwise? Isn't it enough that this gets explicitly called out in like the beginnings of each book? Do we really need it repeated an infinitum just to make sure people get it?

Let's look at this thing practically. There is only so much space for each monster in the book. So you either can fill that space up with sections like Description, Personality, Ecology, Tactics, and Story... or you just repeat Description five times for five different campaign settings like you are advocating.

Which one is worth more to people? I'm pretty sure we all know the answer to this.

 

[billd91]

And if there's not room for a sampling, the one goblin that gets to be in the MM, should still not pretend like it's the D&D goblin, and should still be a specific type of goblin. Even if you have only one goblin, it should be ONE of those goblins, not "Goblins in D&D are like THIS!", but "This goblin is like this, and you can use it in your game if you want!"

Any monster manual that does that for every monster entry is going to be excessively tedious. I would prefer any of that business to be dealt with in a Foreword or some other introductory material about using the rulebook. It can just lay out that these are the monsters as envisioned for a fairly standard version of of the game because doing so is useful for general campaigns and so that the publishers have a standard definition to use when writing other material that will involve those monsters. And it can include the admonition that specific campaigns can redefine these monsters as desired (and maybe even should do so if that will improve the game for the players at hand).

EDIT:
If a few selected entries were to include brief descriptions of how alternate campaigns or products have treated those monsters differently, minotaurs in Dragonlance, for example, or goblins in Axe of the Dwarvish Lords, I would consider that a fine addition. What I don't want is for too many entries to be encumbered with alternate descriptions.

 

[DMZ2112]

Despite the fact that even if Pathfinder *didn't* make their goblins "brain-damaged"... you probably would STILL create a custom statblock for them because whatever they put down would STILL not be exactly how you see the goblins in your head. Thereby rendering the entirety of their efforts for naught.

Actually, not to undermine Kamikaze Midget's much-appreciated efforts, but I am actually /super/ lazy, and thus my willingness to rewrite Pathfinder goblins /at all/ is a powerful testament to exactly how unforgivable caricatured monsters are.

A ha!

Seriously, this is not a matter of my goblin vs. your goblin or anyone else's goblin. This is a matter of keeping the goblin baseline enough that no one has to rewrite anything and can focus on making the baseline creature better through personalized additions. The problem with Pathfinder's goblins is not that they are nasty, brutish, short, and stupid; it's that they've become a /joke/.

The /joke/, or caricature, is the problem, not the characterization. Which brings us back to James Wyatt's assertion that these creatures are comedic. Comedy is not a racial trait, /it is a style of play/!

I do not want to see goblins in D&D with pratfalls and bickering built in!

 

[I'm A Banana]

Do you REALLY believe that? Do you really believe that every single monster description has to begin with "Remember, you can change any of these things to fit your campaign!"?

Any monster manual that does that for every monster entry is going to be excessively tedious.

I wouldn't literally expect a constant reminder, of course. The difference between these two sentences is the difference I'm talking about:

"Goblins are stupid."

"The goblins of the Nentir Vale are stupid."

POOF. You've magically turned your overly broad categorical statement about all goblins in the game into a specific statement about these specific goblins.

Let's look at this thing practically. There is only so much space for each monster in the book. So you either can fill that space up with sections like Description, Personality, Ecology, Tactics, and Story... or you just repeat Description five times for five different campaign settings like you are advocating.

That's not what I'm advocating, and I thought that was pretty clear when I put that "And, heck, if there's room," right there in black and white for everyone to to see. So you can take down that strawman.

 

[TwoSix]

Why would anyone buy a book that was a cut 'n paste job from every other book? Cause all the pages someone wanted were all bound together all nice and pretty? Same exact information they already own... but now all put in one place. Great. That's money well spent. Couldn't be bothered to just photocopy the various descriptions from all the different books themselves... everyone needs WotC to do it for them.

To be fair, I will absolutely pay money for a book of ideas from other books that I like that are bound together. I don't have the time or the patience to put together my "BIG BOOK OF HOUSE RULES", and honestly, most groups have no desire to play that. Give me a game with a tone I like that I can then say to my group "We're using this book to play, go buy it."